I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
If you look at the Kharkiv local council seat to the west of the river you can clear see that there is more support… we should target them in the first instance and redraw the boundaries
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
For me the conversation has been a touch jarring to read on both sides as the arguments seem to read from complete confidence as to how events would unfold if x or y had been done.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
There are rarely good solutions in the Middle East.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
The JackW Platoon!
'After you, your Lordship.....'
‘Pass me my Mannlicher, my good man.’
At least Gallowgate will be able to relieve that itchy trigger finger of his.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
For me the conversation has been a touch jarring to read on both sides as the arguments seem to read from complete confidence as to how events would unfold if x or y had been done.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
There are rarely good solutions in the Middle East.
Agreed, but I go further than that and say there is inevitably great uncertainty between choosing different strategies in civil wars, and that tactics are often as important as strategy.
Except … have been looking around for the “turn down your thermostat to help Ukraine” campaign and can’t see one.
What am I missing? Given the weight of domestic use, wouldn’t cutting marginal gas usage be the most effective short-term choice a European consumer could make?
It works politically, doesn't it? All the politicians can get photographed patriotically wearing nice woolly jumpers, also helps with inflation and so forth, saves businesses and government money, and obviously there's also a climate upside.
One important point about all these war videos posted online - whatever our motives in viewing them, there is a purpose to their posting.
Putin has propagandised the war from its outset, but they give constant lie to the nonsense reported by Russian state media. You might not like these videos, but citizen journalism, with all its flaws, is massively important.
Citizen journalism - in particular Belingcat - were first out of the traps in bringing down the feeble lies spread by the Russians over MH17.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration (together with the usual snail's pace and incompetence at the Home Office) rather than because Russia launders money through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
I think the way to hit Putin is with weapons, less so with economic sanctions.
Is your "real interest rates" of -5% based on inflation minus base rate? If so, inflation has only been high for a relatively short time period. So -5% real interest rates is only a recent phenomenon.
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
Forties... Dogger... German Bight... I remember that night all too well.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
I'm sure you're joking, but for any of our more panicky posters, in the event of WWIII the commanders are told to try to pick up BBCR4 to see if there is still a functioning UK. IF they can't find evidence of that they open the letter the Prime Minister has written giving them instructions on what to do.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Gandhi suggested that if Jews had gone willingly to the gas chambers, they would have melted the Nazis' hearts.
Is that plausible?
Not true. He advised the Jews in 1939 to melt Nazi hearts by satyagraha, when probably not even Hitler had thought of gas chambers. When he became aware of the fact of the shoah his advice was they should have committed mass suicide
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
This was pretty much the only important decision Ed Miliband made during his 5 years as leader.
It wasnt the decision he later pretended it had been.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
The Chinese are basically on to a winner whatever they do. They could sweep in to broker a 'peace' deal that is still enormously advantageous to Russia and bad for the west. That too would be welcomed as 'peace in our time': sanctions lifted, gas back on, panic over back to normal etc.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Gandhi suggested that if Jews had gone willingly to the gas chambers, they would have melted the Nazis' hearts.
Is that plausible?
The Gandhi method worked because he was trying it on the one power (us) that could be shamed into giving India independence.
If he'd tried it on virtually anyone else, particularly the Nazis, he'd have been tortured and executed.
Good header @Cyclefree. The ideal scenario is one where MP's actions are dictated by their consciences, and the electorate, not necessarily in that order. It's fair to say that at the moment we don't have this. You identify money coming in from Russia and other countries as a source of distortion, and it is, but not the only one. There is also money from corporate entities, meaning the same old monolithic companies are selected for Government work. There is also the old boys/girls network of Common Purpose casting a big shadow over public appointments. There is also the influence of the USA, so overwhelming that it's now not even noticed, where a terse videocall from Biden can dictate British foreign and domestic policy. There *was* also European Union decree, which British Governments were compelled to write into statute, without it being put before the public as part of any manifesto. Thankfully that one has gone. And that's not a comprehensive list.
The solution cannot be one of tackling the money coming in, and telling politicians that they are just going to have to be poorer - that's like telling corporations that they are just going to have to make less profit. So it has to be that politicians have financial incentives to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. So, I am thinking of launching an app, along the following lines. The app allows any private UK voter to register, and they are allowed to donate a pound to any politician of their choice. It can only be one pound, per politician, per year. The app has an API link up with the 'they work for you' website or similar, and your pound donation must be linked to an action taken by that politician, for example, voting against the live export of animals, or making a speech on behalf of Tibet. A politician could make thousands or even millions of pounds by making popular decisions, far exceeding their earnings potential from all other sources.
That's an interesting idea and I'd encourage you to try it. There is an objective problem in British democracy that the spending limits are porous (only applied at elections, with huge loopholes), and although you can't buy electoral success, you are massively handicapped if your opponent outspends you 2-1.
I was once offered a large donation to my chronically cash-strapped constitituency party by the representative of a group supporting Azerbaijan. I said, truthfully, that I'd not followed events there closely, and had no strong views on the rights and wrongs vis-a-vis Armenia, so why was he approaching me? He said no problem, we'll be pleased to brief you, we just want some intelligent MPs to take an interest. Increasingly wary about the mixture of £££s and flattery, I asked curiously what they'd expect for their money. "Nothing, except interest in the region. Well not at first, anyway - later we'd hope you'd ask some supportive questions." Yeah, right.
I declined, and considered reporting it, but it was too nebulous for the authorities to have been interested. But I won't deny that the thought "This could enable me to fight the next election on more equal terms" had crossed my mind when he started his spiel. Writ small, that's the same thinking that encourages the Tories to accept ££££££ from people who apparently just want a pleasant chat or a tennis match with a Minister but then turn out to want more. It's a slippery slope, and fixing our spending limits would be a useful part of the solution. Buying influence is not only a problem if the donors are related to oligarchs - that's just a particularly egregious example, as Cyclefree points out.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
So far the ones wanting to come here are those with family already in the UK, for whom entry rather than housing is the problem.
Yes - I suggested yesterday that people could be granted a visa on arrival where they have a sponsor (either a citizen or existing long term resident).
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
Edit: there’s some very interesting planes flying in Poland this morning.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
The Chinese are basically on to a winner whatever they do. They could sweep in to broker a 'peace' deal that is still enormously advantageous to Russia and bad for the west. That too would be welcomed as 'peace in our time': sanctions lifted, gas back on, panic over back to normal etc.
Except that the Chinese can't dictate to the Ukrainians.
The most plausible explanation is that they want Russia restraining as much as we do. China can't become the leading world power if the world is reduced to a heap of charred rubble first.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
Well said, Sandpit. If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration than because Russia launders mone through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London, for instance, are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
Taking a longer view, we never really faced the reckoning from the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, nor from the austerity of the 2010s, nor yet from Covid, and now we have the potential aftermaths from War in Europe to add to the list. All on top of accelerating climate change.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
I was reflecting what a shit start we have had to the 21st century: GFC, austerity, Brexit, Trump, Covid, and now war in Europe.
Then again by this stage of the 20th century we had had the horrors of WW1 and Spanish Flu...
Yes, quite. Every generation has its nasties and challenges, and future generations will too.
2010s Britain was far better for virtually everyone than 1920s Britain, regardless of how romantic the decade may now seem in hindsight.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
I think Elwood recently argued that NATO should have placed troops in Ukraine to deter Putin. Can anyone confirm if I have this right? Wouldn't that have effectively amounted to Ukraine membership of NATO and risked provoking an even more dangerous situation than is currently the case?
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
The JackW Platoon!
'After you, your Lordship.....'
‘Pass me my Mannlicher, my good man.’
At least Gallowgate will be able to relieve that itchy trigger finger of his.
Orwell got the knowledge of how the Bolshevik version of communism worked - and that gave him his mission that Fascism and Leninists were cheeks of the same... ARSE.
On a few other topics here this morning. Lenin was a murderous piece of shit who only fell out with his pet bank robber when he realise he was losing control. Lenin himself was an arm chair general and thundercunt, who gloried in causing deaths of zillions of "workers" in the name of The People. The best bit about Lenin was the way he died - slowly. He smashed up the first decent government Russia had had, and gave The People a tidal wave of horror and misery. Putin and his tiny pee-pee is his heir - "we must sacrifice the people for the good of The People".
The "But both sides are just innocent boys" argument is an interesting one. I bet that those making it would suddenly discover a different view if we were discussing the the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
My grandfather was working in the Glasgow shipyards and refused to join in the wildcat strikes by the Marxist types. They were seeking to disrupt the "Capitalist War" and used the "but they are all workers" argument - until the Soviet Union got invaded. They even tried to physically attack him for it. Mind you, they were stupid enough to do it in the presence of his old WWI chums, in a pub run by another WWI trench friend....
Charles Banner QC, most famously known for being escorted out of business class by armed police a few weeks ago after a dispute with BA cabin crew, has just donated £16.5k to this appeal. He has family in Ukraine, so I think he knows what he is doing. The money is going towards humanitarian aid in Ukraine. I've also been making (rather more paltry) contributions to the same charity, I think it is a good option.
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
That comes with real risks back home. The wives, mothers, children of that "cannon fodder" just see the death of their loved ones, for nothing. The crack troops see NATO equipment in abundance, being used with deadly effect in seemingly unending supply. The generals certainly see this. Neither is going to welcome going in now, driving past columns of their own kit, destroyed. No-one is going to be seeing they are taking part in an "internal" Greater Russia peace-keeping operation. No-one is seeing a master stroke by Putin being delivered. Everyone is seeing a world that is showing support for Ukraine, and contempt and worse for Putin's Russia. And wait until the banks open tomorrow morning, to see a nationwide panic that the banks are going bust. The talk in those long lines to take out a limit of ten roubles are not going to be discussing their praises of their leader.
Plus there is no great evidence that they were the second tier. The Chechen contingent were supposed to be crack troops. Reports are, they got handed their arses. You don't use second tier troops to take important day one targets, the airports and important facilities. The reports of destruction inflicted seem to cover all types of kit (and anyway you'd expect the shittier tanks and vehicles to make up a disproportionate share of the kit taken out).
And if the better kit and troops ARE being held back, it might be because some generals take the view that having provoked such a broad response from NATO, that NATO might now might take the opportunity to go hunting Bear. We might consider it crazy that we would chase troops right back into Russia proper; but the action of invading Ukraine shows smart thinking wasn't present in abundance either. Defence of Russia might be in their minds, from a vengeful world looking to make Russia pay the price. What if NATO arms Ukraine to ensure it takes back Donbas? Crimea? They are going to need more than conscripts to keep those gains.
I certainly expect it to get much tougher in the coming days for the Ukrainian defenders. Russia knows where they are - and are likely to take much more destructive measures to flatten them. But that means the certainty of a grim resistance in any land they do take and try to hold. And perhaps there are some generals looking months into the future thinking "this isn't going to work...." We can only hope for such sanity to ultimately prevail in Moscow.
The West will support Ukraine in reclaiming Donblas and Crimea. A return to the status quo ante isn’t sufficient - Putin’s adventurism would have no cost if we allowed that.
But just taking back illegally occupied territories doesn’t provide a legitimate causi belli for the future
StillWaters, that's the thinking that leads to feuds over centuries, as we've experienced in Ireland. Putin's invasion is idiotic in his own terms, as MM points out - it's why I couldn't believe it was going to happen and why I support Western military equipment and financial aid for Ukraine. I can see Western support for Ukraine reunifying with Donbas. But if we support a counter-invasion of Crimea, where there isn't any serious doubt that the population don't want it, we set up another loop in the spiral of retaliation for the future. Ultimately, plebiscites to find out where people actually want to belong, as in Slesvig-Holstein, is the only durable solution. It's as true in Crimea as it is in Scotland and Ireland and Kashmir.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 19m The world must now take the extreme measure of full sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports. That is the one thing which will truly hurt Putin and his allies. We must be ready for the cost this will impose on Germany, Italy and the global economy. But that cost is less than war.
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
Are we certain it's actually all out of date equipment and useless conscripts? If my "elite" forces, paratroops, and equipment were failing disastrously I'd probably put it about that this was just the garbage stuff and you should just wait til we send in the real thing.
One reads (albeit that this story was both published in the Mail and derives from a war zone, so considerable caution is advised,) that the Chechen general reportedly killed recently died along with a substantial column of his men - some of Russia's best and most ruthless troops - and that 56 tanks were destroyed in the process. We also spent much of yesterday evening speculating about how much of Russia's theoretically vast conventional strength may actually exist only on paper. ISRC it being suggested that something like 13,000 of the Kremlin's 16,000 tanks are in reserve formations, and it is questionable how many of those actually exist and what fraction of the extant units are operational.
We also have to remember that Russia's armed forces are vastly larger than the UK's, but its defence budget is actually smaller. A lot of this will be accounted for by the fact that the Russian army is full of conscripts serving for miserable pay and conditions, and Russia is self-sufficient in oil, but ultimately you have to ask how far their limited resources are actually stretching, and how much of Russia's strength is unsupported financially and, therefore, exists only on paper?
Anyway, Kyiv still stands this morning but it is reported that the Russians have invaded Kharkiv. The latter may be a valuable indicator: if they are also, hopefully, repulsed there, it would suggest that the invasion is in serious trouble.
That point also occurred to me. The death of the Chechen general indicates that this may not be an army of clumsy conscripts.
It also tends to show that the Russians are overrated, remember they could not handle Afghanistan , fine when you are just bombing people from the sky but different kettle of fish when they are up against determined people on the ground.
To be fair, Malc, the topography of Afghanistan is different to that of Ukraine. Running a guerrilla campaign is, I understand, easier in mountainous areas.
The US sanctions on the Russian central bank could result in the Ruble going into free fall as it can no longer be defended by selling dollar reseves.
It really feels like financial sanctions have really been stepped up quite significantly from an initially slow start. I hope we continue to find ways to tighten them further.
Best case scenario: the ruble goes the way of the Zimbabwean dollar and Russia can no longer afford to pay for imports, even if it can find partners willing to sell.
Russia has more than $600 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The ruble's value is less important than sanctions. It is not as if Germany pays for its Russian gas in rubles. As Putin might tell the Russian people: this will not affect the ruble in your pocket.
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
If the refugees are going to be amongst us for years then they are going to need homes, jobs and their children are going to need settled lives and uninterrupted schooling. This requires permanent resettlement. Besides, it's not as if Ukraine can be repopulated by its missing millions for so long as the Russian security forces are roaming around it brutalising people, anyway.
When people are eventually able to go back to Ukraine then I'm sure that many of them will want to, and we can help by providing funds to facilitate their return (in addition to the UK contribution to the Ukrainian equivalent of the Marshall Fund that I hope will be forthcoming at the end of all of this,) but in the meantime they can't be expected to live in tents near the Polish border indefinitely. If some of them also decide that they rather like it here and stay put then so be it.
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
For me the conversation has been a touch jarring to read on both sides as the arguments seem to read from complete confidence as to how events would unfold if x or y had been done.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
There are rarely good solutions in the Middle East.
Agreed, but I go further than that and say there is inevitably great uncertainty between choosing different strategies in civil wars, and that tactics are often as important as strategy.
The one time I can think of, that an intervention in a Civil War was handled sensibly was the endgame in the Yugoslav Wars.
Recognising that there were at least 6 sides, and that how evil they were depended on how many guns they had, was key.
The Americans (for once) under Colin Powell recognised this. So they armed the Croats etc in a limited fashion and controlled the logistics. When the Croats et al started winning they did the Balkan thing - with victory comes atrocities. The Americans (and allies) cut off units which broke the rules - so they were annihilated in Serb counter attacks. Think of it as evolution in action. This kept the bad stuff to a minimum.
When the UN agreed borders were mostly achieved, the Americans turned off the taps, with a very nasty warning to everyone involved about more Good News.
So far, this peace has held for some decades.
It was this that got Tony Blair to believe in military intervention, I believe - but not understand what had actually happened.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
China surely realises that Putin is achieving the opposite of what China wants: a revived, united west, rearming and prepared to fight. Whether it is for Latvia - or Taiwan
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
I can't agree with this. The idea people cannot comment on something without taking part in it is just plain rubbish. Am I to believe matters of geo political importance shouldn't be commented on except by people on the front lines?
As for this is year X fallacy silliness, of course war should not be happening, but despite many conflicts happening around the globe wars actually are less common now and that's great. But we dont live in a utopia yet and that some places still need to fight to defend themselves is a fact but doesnt mean we are should be in caves.
I dont even understand what moral stand you are trying to take on that comment. No one but Putin and his supporters wanted this, but having happened war really is the only option, at least until hopefully he sees it is not a good option for him.
I see nothing untoward in people hoping for the best of a bad set of options in that conflict. Would ignoring it and being silent be more moral somehow?
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
That comes with real risks back home. The wives, mothers, children of that "cannon fodder" just see the death of their loved ones, for nothing. The crack troops see NATO equipment in abundance, being used with deadly effect in seemingly unending supply. The generals certainly see this. Neither is going to welcome going in now, driving past columns of their own kit, destroyed. No-one is going to be seeing they are taking part in an "internal" Greater Russia peace-keeping operation. No-one is seeing a master stroke by Putin being delivered. Everyone is seeing a world that is showing support for Ukraine, and contempt and worse for Putin's Russia. And wait until the banks open tomorrow morning, to see a nationwide panic that the banks are going bust. The talk in those long lines to take out a limit of ten roubles are not going to be discussing their praises of their leader.
Plus there is no great evidence that they were the second tier. The Chechen contingent were supposed to be crack troops. Reports are, they got handed their arses. You don't use second tier troops to take important day one targets, the airports and important facilities. The reports of destruction inflicted seem to cover all types of kit (and anyway you'd expect the shittier tanks and vehicles to make up a disproportionate share of the kit taken out).
And if the better kit and troops ARE being held back, it might be because some generals take the view that having provoked such a broad response from NATO, that NATO might now might take the opportunity to go hunting Bear. We might consider it crazy that we would chase troops right back into Russia proper; but the action of invading Ukraine shows smart thinking wasn't present in abundance either. Defence of Russia might be in their minds, from a vengeful world looking to make Russia pay the price. What if NATO arms Ukraine to ensure it takes back Donbas? Crimea? They are going to need more than conscripts to keep those gains.
I certainly expect it to get much tougher in the coming days for the Ukrainian defenders. Russia knows where they are - and are likely to take much more destructive measures to flatten them. But that means the certainty of a grim resistance in any land they do take and try to hold. And perhaps there are some generals looking months into the future thinking "this isn't going to work...." We can only hope for such sanity to ultimately prevail in Moscow.
The West will support Ukraine in reclaiming Donblas and Crimea. A return to the status quo ante isn’t sufficient - Putin’s adventurism would have no cost if we allowed that.
But just taking back illegally occupied territories doesn’t provide a legitimate causi belli for the future
StillWaters, that's the thinking that leads to feuds over centuries, as we've experienced in Ireland. Putin's invasion is idiotic in his own terms, as MM points out - it's why I couldn't believe it was going to happen and why I support Western military equipment and financial aid for Ukraine. I can see Western support for Ukraine reunifying with Donbas. But if we support a counter-invasion of Crimea, where there isn't any serious doubt that the population don't want it, we set up another loop in the spiral of retaliation for the future. Ultimately, plebiscites to find out where people actually want to belong, as in Slesvig-Holstein, is the only durable solution. It's as true in Crimea as it is in Scotland and Ireland and Kashmir.
For someone who's been so close to politics for so long, I'm a little surprised that you thought that a decision wouldn't be taken just because it was idiotic on its own terms. But then, you voted for the Iraq war, didn't you? So perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. Perhaps it was not clear to Putin that this invasion was idiotic, just as it wasn't clear to you in 2003?
Whatever the reason, it's a lesson. Stupid things happen despite them being stupid.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
????
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Waverley (Surrey) has so far taken exactly 3 Afghan families. We've been pestering the Government to let us take more, especially as we keep reading reports of families been stuck in hotels (presumably expensively for the Government, no?), with mutters that local authorities aren't volunteering enough.
We're volunteering. But it's taking forever to actually get through the process.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
If you look at the Kharkiv local council seat to the west of the river you can clear see that there is more support… we should target them in the first instance and redraw the boundaries
If PB was running Ukraine, they would have been nuclear armed for a start, if I had anything to do with it.
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
Absolutely wrong. That was me, the reference was to the movie Predator, and it is not in context a slur of any kind.
A basic knowledge of the Schwarzenegger corpus is assumed, along of course with aliens
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
We did enable Assad. And we enabled Putin.
That's the entire point.
It was an ideal moment to stand up for our values and push back against tyrants.
It would be supremely ironic if Russia's war in Ukraine failed because Putin's political system - based on enabled larceny from office-holders - had left its army so bereft of fuel and supplies that it was unable to fight.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
Absolutely wrong. That was me, the reference was to the movie Predator, and it is not in context a slur of any kind.
A basic knowledge of the Schwarzenegger corpus is assumed, along of course with aliens
You have to assume that people won't get the reference - which is why active gifs are so useful
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
If you look at the Kharkiv local council seat to the west of the river you can clear see that there is more support… we should target them in the first instance and redraw the boundaries
If PB was running Ukraine, they would have been nuclear armed for a start, if I had anything to do with it.
"Put not your trust in Princes"
It is the confidence trick in its most basic form: give up your nukes to show me you trust me
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
China surely realises that Putin is achieving the opposite of what China wants: a revived, united west, rearming and prepared to fight. Whether it is for Latvia - or Taiwan
Perhaps China is getting exactly what it wants. A sad patsy testing the water, getting horribly scalded. Information gained. Move Taiwan invasion back another 5 years til conditions improve.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
????
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
????
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
So I come to PB...
"I could not dig: I dared not to rob: Therefore I lied to please the mob."
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
I think Elwood recently argued that NATO should have placed troops in Ukraine to deter Putin. Can anyone confirm if I have this right? Wouldn't that have effectively amounted to Ukraine membership of NATO and risked provoking an even more dangerous situation than is currently the case?
Yes, he was arguing exactly that a few days before the full scale invasion. The idea was both extremely unlikely to receive support from anyone in NATO, and also suggesting a huge gamble.
Tugendhat seems a more rational, less emotional character.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
For someone who's been so close to politics for so long, I'm a little surprised that you thought that a decision wouldn't be taken just because it was idiotic on its own terms. But then, you voted for the Iraq war, didn't you? So perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. Perhaps it was not clear to Putin that this invasion was idiotic, just as it wasn't clear to you in 2003?
Whatever the reason, it's a lesson. Stupid things happen despite them being stupid.
Yes, fair comment. But whereas in Iraq it was possible to see a scenario, however illusory, which would have been healthy - a democratic, peaceful Iraq, no threat to Israel or Iran oir anyone else - I can't think of a scenario in which invading a hostile neighbour against overwhelming world opinion leads to an outcome that Putin would like.
Perhaps Roger's Gandhi suggestion is not far off target. Question is would the tanks have stopped 30 years ago after checking for TV news crews, and can they win this sort of war if they feel obliged to stop now
No white Z markings though on the tank. Suspect until proven otherwise.
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
Absolutely wrong. That was me, the reference was to the movie Predator, and it is not in context a slur of any kind.
A basic knowledge of the Schwarzenegger corpus is assumed, along of course with aliens
You have to assume that people won't get the reference - which is why active gifs are so useful
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
Absolutely wrong. That was me, the reference was to the movie Predator, and it is not in context a slur of any kind.
A basic knowledge of the Schwarzenegger corpus is assumed, along of course with aliens
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
I'm not sure whether this is having any effect on UK politics? According to today's Mail a new poll would see half of the Cabinet lose their seats, including Boris Johson.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
Between fatso and the horror that is Truss posing for photographs in the hope that people will forget they are lying cheating no marks, it would make you vomit.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
If you look at the Kharkiv local council seat to the west of the river you can clear see that there is more support… we should target them in the first instance and redraw the boundaries
If PB was running Ukraine, they would have been nuclear armed for a start, if I had anything to do with it.
"Put not your trust in Princes"
It is the confidence trick in its most basic form: give up your nukes to show me you trust me
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
????
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
So I come to PB...
"I could not dig: I dared not to rob: Therefore I lied to please the mob."
Written by a disillusioned man to the warmongers who killed his son at the Battle of Loos.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
It’s driven by their trade interests.
A bit like Germany’s slow and inadequate response.
But I guess that’s white Europeans are just exercising their democratic rights and you can justify being tougher on India because you don’t like Modi
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders in the sun; And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
????
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
So I come to PB...
"I could not dig: I dared not to rob: Therefore I lied to please the mob."
Written by a disillusioned man to the warmongers who killed his son at the Battle of Loos.
Good header @Cyclefree. The ideal scenario is one where MP's actions are dictated by their consciences, and the electorate, not necessarily in that order. It's fair to say that at the moment we don't have this. You identify money coming in from Russia and other countries as a source of distortion, and it is, but not the only one. There is also money from corporate entities, meaning the same old monolithic companies are selected for Government work. There is also the old boys/girls network of Common Purpose casting a big shadow over public appointments. There is also the influence of the USA, so overwhelming that it's now not even noticed, where a terse videocall from Biden can dictate British foreign and domestic policy. There *was* also European Union decree, which British Governments were compelled to write into statute, without it being put before the public as part of any manifesto. Thankfully that one has gone. And that's not a comprehensive list.
The solution cannot be one of tackling the money coming in, and telling politicians that they are just going to have to be poorer - that's like telling corporations that they are just going to have to make less profit. So it has to be that politicians have financial incentives to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. So, I am thinking of launching an app, along the following lines. The app allows any private UK voter to register, and they are allowed to donate a pound to any politician of their choice. It can only be one pound, per politician, per year. The app has an API link up with the 'they work for you' website or similar, and your pound donation must be linked to an action taken by that politician, for example, voting against the live export of animals, or making a speech on behalf of Tibet. A politician could make thousands or even millions of pounds by making popular decisions, far exceeding their earnings potential from all other sources.
That's an interesting idea and I'd encourage you to try it. There is an objective problem in British democracy that the spending limits are porous (only applied at elections, with huge loopholes), and although you can't buy electoral success, you are massively handicapped if your opponent outspends you 2-1.
I was once offered a large donation to my chronically cash-strapped constitituency party by the representative of a group supporting Azerbaijan. I said, truthfully, that I'd not followed events there closely, and had no strong views on the rights and wrongs vis-a-vis Armenia, so why was he approaching me? He said no problem, we'll be pleased to brief you, we just want some intelligent MPs to take an interest. Increasingly wary about the mixture of £££s and flattery, I asked curiously what they'd expect for their money. "Nothing, except interest in the region. Well not at first, anyway - later we'd hope you'd ask some supportive questions." Yeah, right.
I declined, and considered reporting it, but it was too nebulous for the authorities to have been interested. But I won't deny that the thought "This could enable me to fight the next election on more equal terms" had crossed my mind when he started his spiel. Writ small, that's the same thinking that encourages the Tories to accept ££££££ from people who apparently just want a pleasant chat or a tennis match with a Minister but then turn out to want more. It's a slippery slope, and fixing our spending limits would be a useful part of the solution. Buying influence is not only a problem if the donors are related to oligarchs - that's just a particularly egregious example, as Cyclefree points out.
Another issue is the way politicians in general and ministers in particular can go straight into 'employment' with outside interests. Outside interests which may have benefitted from decisions those politicians had previously taken.
George Osborne is a classic example of this but there are many others from all parties.
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
Are we certain it's actually all out of date equipment and useless conscripts? If my "elite" forces, paratroops, and equipment were failing disastrously I'd probably put it about that this was just the garbage stuff and you should just wait til we send in the real thing.
One reads (albeit that this story was both published in the Mail and derives from a war zone, so considerable caution is advised,) that the Chechen general reportedly killed recently died along with a substantial column of his men - some of Russia's best and most ruthless troops - and that 56 tanks were destroyed in the process. We also spent much of yesterday evening speculating about how much of Russia's theoretically vast conventional strength may actually exist only on paper. ISRC it being suggested that something like 13,000 of the Kremlin's 16,000 tanks are in reserve formations, and it is questionable how many of those actually exist and what fraction of the extant units are operational.
We also have to remember that Russia's armed forces are vastly larger than the UK's, but its defence budget is actually smaller. A lot of this will be accounted for by the fact that the Russian army is full of conscripts serving for miserable pay and conditions, and Russia is self-sufficient in oil, but ultimately you have to ask how far their limited resources are actually stretching, and how much of Russia's strength is unsupported financially and, therefore, exists only on paper?
Anyway, Kyiv still stands this morning but it is reported that the Russians have invaded Kharkiv. The latter may be a valuable indicator: if they are also, hopefully, repulsed there, it would suggest that the invasion is in serious trouble.
That point also occurred to me. The death of the Chechen general indicates that this may not be an army of clumsy conscripts.
It also tends to show that the Russians are overrated, remember they could not handle Afghanistan , fine when you are just bombing people from the sky but different kettle of fish when they are up against determined people on the ground.
To be fair, Malc, the topography of Afghanistan is different to that of Ukraine. Running a guerrilla campaign is, I understand, easier in mountainous areas.
There were partisans in Ukraine during German occupation, enabled by the size of the place and the forests.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
I'm not sure whether this is having any effect on UK politics? According to today's Mail a new poll would see half of the Cabinet lose their seats, including Boris Johson.
While it is true that voters overall believe the UK should offer asylum to Ukranian refugees fleeing the Russian invasion by 50% to 32% that is not true of Conservative voters.
47% of Conservative voters do not believe the government should offer asylum to Ukrainian refugees to 38% who do.
There are therefore limits on how many Ukrainian refugees this Conservative government will be able to take without losing its core voters to the likes of RefUK.
Even amongst the general population there are also limits on generosity, while 17% will welcome a few thousand for example only 9% will welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
China surely realises that Putin is achieving the opposite of what China wants: a revived, united west, rearming and prepared to fight. Whether it is for Latvia - or Taiwan
Yes, the “they’re not going to invade - don’t be stupid” crew are less likely to be listened to next time, and all their “pre-invasion hot takes” will be there for all to see - however many of them they delete. The internet never forgets.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
These annoying people with their refusal to shut up and join which ever country needs to invade them...
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
Are we certain it's actually all out of date equipment and useless conscripts? If my "elite" forces, paratroops, and equipment were failing disastrously I'd probably put it about that this was just the garbage stuff and you should just wait til we send in the real thing.
One reads (albeit that this story was both published in the Mail and derives from a war zone, so considerable caution is advised,) that the Chechen general reportedly killed recently died along with a substantial column of his men - some of Russia's best and most ruthless troops - and that 56 tanks were destroyed in the process. We also spent much of yesterday evening speculating about how much of Russia's theoretically vast conventional strength may actually exist only on paper. ISRC it being suggested that something like 13,000 of the Kremlin's 16,000 tanks are in reserve formations, and it is questionable how many of those actually exist and what fraction of the extant units are operational.
We also have to remember that Russia's armed forces are vastly larger than the UK's, but its defence budget is actually smaller. A lot of this will be accounted for by the fact that the Russian army is full of conscripts serving for miserable pay and conditions, and Russia is self-sufficient in oil, but ultimately you have to ask how far their limited resources are actually stretching, and how much of Russia's strength is unsupported financially and, therefore, exists only on paper?
Anyway, Kyiv still stands this morning but it is reported that the Russians have invaded Kharkiv. The latter may be a valuable indicator: if they are also, hopefully, repulsed there, it would suggest that the invasion is in serious trouble.
That point also occurred to me. The death of the Chechen general indicates that this may not be an army of clumsy conscripts.
It also tends to show that the Russians are overrated, remember they could not handle Afghanistan , fine when you are just bombing people from the sky but different kettle of fish when they are up against determined people on the ground.
To be fair, Malc, the topography of Afghanistan is different to that of Ukraine. Running a guerrilla campaign is, I understand, easier in mountainous areas.
Agree but given many of them are conscripts being paid buttons and don't want to even be in the army , their strength is vastly overrated. They are not defending their homeland and will not want to be dodging bullets or molotov cocktails.
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
Yep JJ is being very simplistic about it. Binary thinking usually is and it's a symptom of our age because understanding nuance and complexity involves a lot more work and doesn't fit into 280 characters.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
China surely realises that Putin is achieving the opposite of what China wants: a revived, united west, rearming and prepared to fight. Whether it is for Latvia - or Taiwan
Yes, the “they’re not going to invade - don’t be stupid” crew are less likely to be listened to next time, and all their “pre-invasion hot takes” will be there for all to see - however many of them they delete. The internet never forgets.
"He's playing you, LOL ! Don't listen to the media, sheeple. Putin's much too canny for you. There won't be any attack."
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
I'm sure you're joking, but for any of our more panicky posters, in the event of WWIII the commanders are told to try to pick up BBCR4 to see if there is still a functioning UK. IF they can't find evidence of that they open the letter the Prime Minister has written giving them instructions on what to do.
I quite like the idea that Armageddon is triggered by a break in transmission of the Home Service. It demonstrates Britain's place in the world order. I suspect snobs like myself would consider the end of R4 as signalling the end of the World as we know it anyway.
Besides, I can't see a place for R4 in a post apocalyptic Mad Max dystopian nightmare.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It’s no more of an ‘impossible state’ than Russia. Probably less so. And this war, if they are not overrun, is likely to make it considerably more cohesive. It’s notable that the Ukraine government, even when fighting the war, are adamant this isn’t about fighting Russians, but Putin. Ukraine’s leadership, at least, appears to be openly attempting to avoid the kind of ethnic strife you’re talking about.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
I'm not sure whether this is having any effect on UK politics? According to today's Mail a new poll would see half of the Cabinet lose their seats, including Boris Johson.
"The survey, conducted by Theresa May's former pollster James Johnson, puts Labour on 45 per cent of the vote, compared to the Conservatives' 32 per cent.
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats would pick up five more seats compared to the last election, the poll predicts, giving them a total of 16.
The survey used the MRP model projection, which maps polling results onto every seat in the country."
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
I'm sure you're joking, but for any of our more panicky posters, in the event of WWIII the commanders are told to try to pick up BBCR4 to see if there is still a functioning UK. IF they can't find evidence of that they open the letter the Prime Minister has written giving them instructions on what to do.
It’s ok there’s a failsafe. They double check by logging on to here and searching for an active thread on AV.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
These annoying people with their refusal to shut up and join which ever country needs to invade them...
For someone who's been so close to politics for so long, I'm a little surprised that you thought that a decision wouldn't be taken just because it was idiotic on its own terms. But then, you voted for the Iraq war, didn't you? So perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. Perhaps it was not clear to Putin that this invasion was idiotic, just as it wasn't clear to you in 2003?
Whatever the reason, it's a lesson. Stupid things happen despite them being stupid.
Yes, fair comment. But whereas in Iraq it was possible to see a scenario, however illusory, which would have been healthy - a democratic, peaceful Iraq, no threat to Israel or Iran oir anyone else - I can't think of a scenario in which invading a hostile neighbour against overwhelming world opinion leads to an outcome that Putin would like.
Part of Greater Russian Nationalism is, like most Greater X Nationalisms, driven by a paranoia that the entire world is out to get you.
"It is better to be feared than loved" is a watch word with these types.
Putin probably had a vision of himself walking through the smouldering remains of the Presidential palace in Kyiv and putting his foot on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's neck. the NATO bastards will all shit their pants, won't they Mother?
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 19m The world must now take the extreme measure of full sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports. That is the one thing which will truly hurt Putin and his allies. We must be ready for the cost this will impose on Germany, Italy and the global economy. But that cost is less than war.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
It’s driven by their trade interests.
A bit like Germany’s slow and inadequate response.
But I guess that’s white Europeans are just exercising their democratic rights and you can justify being tougher on India because you don’t like Modi
All countries are keener on taking actions (or, even better, others taking actions) that don't unduly harm their economic interests or trample on any domestic political hot potatoes. Despite the criticism of the Germans - who have greater of both than we do - we've so far been no different.
Indeed I notice that the Swift ban, which was initially trailed as "ban Russia and Russians from Swift", is now being clarified as applying to certain (as yet unspecified) Russian banks only.
For someone who's been so close to politics for so long, I'm a little surprised that you thought that a decision wouldn't be taken just because it was idiotic on its own terms. But then, you voted for the Iraq war, didn't you? So perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. Perhaps it was not clear to Putin that this invasion was idiotic, just as it wasn't clear to you in 2003?
Whatever the reason, it's a lesson. Stupid things happen despite them being stupid.
Yes, fair comment. But whereas in Iraq it was possible to see a scenario, however illusory, which would have been healthy - a democratic, peaceful Iraq, no threat to Israel or Iran oir anyone else - I can't think of a scenario in which invading a hostile neighbour against overwhelming world opinion leads to an outcome that Putin would like.
In your terms, yes. Putin's goals are somewhat the reverse of that. A democratic, prosperous Ukraine is a threat to his legitimacy. So his goals are rational in that sense. His ability to deliver what he wants without significant cost is where, in my analysis, the idiocy lies. Ditto for us in Iraq. There are arguments that we could have done it better, and achieved some better outcomes than we did. Well, maybe. But history has taught me that change through the barrel of a gun, whilst possible, often tends to go a little sideways and gives you unexpected outcomes. The use of force tends to be more successful and predictable when preserving something. Repelling invaders is a different category to invading.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
That is undoubtedly true.
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
These “Photo Ops” are going viral in Ukraine. They see that more arms are coming their way. They’re very happy to see them.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
Well said, Sandpit. If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
Johnson is still a self seeking slimeball, I would have him out on his arse, along with his deadbeats like Truss before lunch.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
These annoying people with their refusal to shut up and join which ever country needs to invade them...
Basically LD levels of support.
The low numbers even in the east suggest an unpleasant time of it for the Russians….
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
Okay this is pretty interesting, Chinese state affiliated media is posting a video of Chinese students in Kyiv asking for peace.
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
China surely realises that Putin is achieving the opposite of what China wants: a revived, united west, rearming and prepared to fight. Whether it is for Latvia - or Taiwan
Yes, the “they’re not going to invade - don’t be stupid” crew are less likely to be listened to next time, and all their “pre-invasion hot takes” will be there for all to see - however many of them they delete. The internet never forgets.
To be fair it was a reasonable argument to take. No one sensible would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine. Militarily it's one hell of a gamble.
The flaw in that assessment is that Putin has gone doolally, as evidenced by his crazed national broadcast. When you're dealing with a madman it's really difficult to know what's coming.
I am rather concerned, albeit from my quiet little quarter, that Putin will view the increasing militarisation of Ukrainians by western countries as an escalation tantamount to war. Other countries like Belarus are getting sucked in.
There's a real danger now that this is not going to be contained. We're not far away from WWIII.
I hate to say it, but a speedy Putin victory is probably the safest option. That or the removal of Putin by an instantaneous coup, which would obviously be preferable.
I'm not sure whether this is having any effect on UK politics? According to today's Mail a new poll would see half of the Cabinet lose their seats, including Boris Johnson.
There's always some good news in times of trouble.
That's worth its own thread. The reason why it's different from most current polls is that it's MRP, which takes account of local demographics and to some extent of tactical voting.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
Alternatively, Russia can't hold the territory, the whole of the rest of the international community insists that it gives up trying, and then the West (Ukraine included) builds a socking great concrete wall all the way along its border with Putin's shitty little empire and leaves it to rot.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
These annoying people with their refusal to shut up and join which ever country needs to invade them...
Basically LD levels of support.
The low numbers even in the east suggest an unpleasant time of it for the Russians….
It seems that Russian speakers in Ukraine don't necessarily think of themselves as Russian nationals.
Almost as if multi-ethnic/cultural states can exist without violent repression, or something.
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
I'm sure you're joking, but for any of our more panicky posters, in the event of WWIII the commanders are told to try to pick up BBCR4 to see if there is still a functioning UK. IF they can't find evidence of that they open the letter the Prime Minister has written giving them instructions on what to do.
It’s ok there’s a failsafe. They double check by logging on to here and searching for an active thread on AV.
If there's still a row about Brexit, we're all OK.
While it is true that voters overall believe the UK should offer asylum to Ukranian refugees fleeing the Russian invasion by 50% to 32% that is not true of Conservative voters.
47% of Conservative voters do not believe the government should offer asylum to Ukrainian refugees to 38% who do.
There are therefore limits on how many Ukrainian refugees this Conservative government will be able to take without losing its core voters to the likes of RefUK.
Even amongst the general population there are also limits on generosity, while 17% will welcome a few thousand for example only 9% will welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees
Perhaps the government should show leadership rather than rely on opinion polls and fear of losing votes to a party who can't come up with a better acronym than REF**K.
Comments
It’s not outright pro Ukrainian, but it definitely does not paint the Russians in the best light...
Again, you have to remember that this was most likely approved by a Chinese state backed editorial board. There is an implicit backing of the message here by the Chinese.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1497862113607442438
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1497669610686058496
I remember that night all too well.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/russia-invade-ukraine-western-fighters-nato
I have been triggered because I foolishly don't understand why we needed the photograph.
I have been careful to apportion any criticism of our limited assistance in Ukraine, and our earlier, and to an extent current timidity towards Putin on Western leaders as a collective. The inappropriate photo op, unhinged me. Replace this casually unserious man with someone of gravitas. Tugendhadt is my choice under the circumstances. Although if Elwood was on the card I'd take him
Are we overplaying the impact of the weaponry we have supplied?
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1497864618101854219
If he'd tried it on virtually anyone else, particularly the Nazis, he'd have been tortured and executed.
I was once offered a large donation to my chronically cash-strapped constitituency party by the representative of a group supporting Azerbaijan. I said, truthfully, that I'd not followed events there closely, and had no strong views on the rights and wrongs vis-a-vis Armenia, so why was he approaching me? He said no problem, we'll be pleased to brief you, we just want some intelligent MPs to take an interest. Increasingly wary about the mixture of £££s and flattery, I asked curiously what they'd expect for their money. "Nothing, except interest in the region. Well not at first, anyway - later we'd hope you'd ask some supportive questions." Yeah, right.
I declined, and considered reporting it, but it was too nebulous for the authorities to have been interested. But I won't deny that the thought "This could enable me to fight the next election on more equal terms" had crossed my mind when he started his spiel. Writ small, that's the same thinking that encourages the Tories to accept ££££££ from people who apparently just want a pleasant chat or a tennis match with a Minister but then turn out to want more. It's a slippery slope, and fixing our spending limits would be a useful part of the solution. Buying influence is not only a problem if the donors are related to oligarchs - that's just a particularly egregious example, as Cyclefree points out.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
I forgot to mention it in earlier post, but Johnson speaking foreign is also on Ukranian TV.
Please everyone, don’t let internal UK politics get in the way of seeing the much bigger picture.
Edit: there’s some very interesting planes flying in Poland this morning.
The most plausible explanation is that they want Russia restraining as much as we do. China can't become the leading world power if the world is reduced to a heap of charred rubble first.
If we have to wait until this is over to boot out Johnson, so be it.
2010s Britain was far better for virtually everyone than 1920s Britain, regardless of how romantic the decade may now seem in hindsight.
On a few other topics here this morning. Lenin was a murderous piece of shit who only fell out with his pet bank robber when he realise he was losing control. Lenin himself was an arm chair general and thundercunt, who gloried in causing deaths of zillions of "workers" in the name of The People. The best bit about Lenin was the way he died - slowly. He smashed up the first decent government Russia had had, and gave The People a tidal wave of horror and misery. Putin and his tiny pee-pee is his heir - "we must sacrifice the people for the good of The People".
The "But both sides are just innocent boys" argument is an interesting one. I bet that those making it would suddenly discover a different view if we were discussing the the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
My grandfather was working in the Glasgow shipyards and refused to join in the wildcat strikes by the Marxist types. They were seeking to disrupt the "Capitalist War" and used the "but they are all workers" argument - until the Soviet Union got invaded. They even tried to physically attack him for it. Mind you, they were stupid enough to do it in the presence of his old WWI chums, in a pub run by another WWI trench friend....
"Mannlicher" - dear me. Surely a Rigby?
https://www.gofundme.com/f/helpukraine
@RoryStewartUK
·
19m
The world must now take the extreme measure of full sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports. That is the one thing which will truly hurt Putin and his allies. We must be ready for the cost this will impose on Germany, Italy and the global economy. But that cost is less than war.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1497863663365013505
When people are eventually able to go back to Ukraine then I'm sure that many of them will want to, and we can help by providing funds to facilitate their return (in addition to the UK contribution to the Ukrainian equivalent of the Marshall Fund that I hope will be forthcoming at the end of all of this,) but in the meantime they can't be expected to live in tents near the Polish border indefinitely. If some of them also decide that they rather like it here and stay put then so be it.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1497862714512887810
More from Zelensky. He says what Russia is doing is “terror.”
“What the invaders are doing to Kharkiv, Okhtyrka, Kyiv, Odesa and other cities and towns deserves an international tribunal.”
Recognising that there were at least 6 sides, and that how evil they were depended on how many guns they had, was key.
The Americans (for once) under Colin Powell recognised this. So they armed the Croats etc in a limited fashion and controlled the logistics. When the Croats et al started winning they did the Balkan thing - with victory comes atrocities. The Americans (and allies) cut off units which broke the rules - so they were annihilated in Serb counter attacks. Think of it as evolution in action. This kept the bad stuff to a minimum.
When the UN agreed borders were mostly achieved, the Americans turned off the taps, with a very nasty warning to everyone involved about more Good News.
So far, this peace has held for some decades.
It was this that got Tony Blair to believe in military intervention, I believe - but not understand what had actually happened.
As for this is year X fallacy silliness, of course war should not be happening, but despite many conflicts happening around the globe wars actually are less common now and that's great. But we dont live in a utopia yet and that some places still need to fight to defend themselves is a fact but doesnt mean we are should be in caves.
I dont even understand what moral stand you are trying to take on that comment. No one but Putin and his supporters wanted this, but having happened war really is the only option, at least until hopefully he sees it is not a good option for him.
I see nothing untoward in people hoping for the best of a bad set of options in that conflict. Would ignoring it and being silent be more moral somehow?
But then, you voted for the Iraq war, didn't you? So perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. Perhaps it was not clear to Putin that this invasion was idiotic, just as it wasn't clear to you in 2003?
Whatever the reason, it's a lesson. Stupid things happen despite them being stupid.
My face is too ugly for TV, my voice too poor for radio, and my literacy too bad for the newspapers.
So I come to PB...
We're volunteering. But it's taking forever to actually get through the process.
"Put not your trust in Princes"
A basic knowledge of the Schwarzenegger corpus is assumed, along of course with aliens
That's the entire point.
It was an ideal moment to stand up for our values and push back against tyrants.
And thanks to Ed, we flunked it.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1497869849552371720
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
You don't get to pick a third side.
You've picked the wrong side.
The only losers are Putin and Ukraine.
The idea was both extremely unlikely to receive support from anyone in NATO, and also suggesting a huge gamble.
Tugendhat seems a more rational, less emotional character.
We are at the beginning of this conflict, not the end, and the final outcome isn't written.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10556181/HALF-Boris-Johnsons-Cabinet-lose-seats-general-election-held-poll-reveals.html
A bit like Germany’s slow and inadequate response.
But I guess that’s white Europeans are just exercising their democratic rights and you can justify being tougher on India because you don’t like Modi
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
What's this about a seasonal fruit picking visa?
George Osborne is a classic example of this but there are many others from all parties.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago
47% of Conservative voters do not believe the government should offer asylum to Ukrainian refugees to 38% who do.
There are therefore limits on how many Ukrainian refugees this Conservative government will be able to take without losing its core voters to the likes of RefUK.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1497258529006268421?s=20&t=uvQVxhjoqJFHbKw-GtklEw
Even amongst the general population there are also limits on generosity, while 17% will welcome a few thousand for example only 9% will welcome hundreds of thousands of refugees
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1497258104211357705?s=20&t=uvQVxhjoqJFHbKw-GtklEw
Besides, I can't see a place for R4 in a post apocalyptic Mad Max dystopian nightmare.
And this war, if they are not overrun, is likely to make it considerably more cohesive.
It’s notable that the Ukraine government, even when fighting the war, are adamant this isn’t about fighting Russians, but Putin. Ukraine’s leadership, at least, appears to be openly attempting to avoid the kind of ethnic strife you’re talking about.
"The survey, conducted by Theresa May's former pollster James Johnson, puts Labour on 45 per cent of the vote, compared to the Conservatives' 32 per cent.
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats would pick up five more seats compared to the last election, the poll predicts, giving them a total of 16.
The survey used the MRP model projection, which maps polling results onto every seat in the country."
"It is better to be feared than loved" is a watch word with these types.
Putin probably had a vision of himself walking through the smouldering remains of the Presidential palace in Kyiv and putting his foot on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's neck. the NATO bastards will all shit their pants, won't they Mother?
Indeed I notice that the Swift ban, which was initially trailed as "ban Russia and Russians from Swift", is now being clarified as applying to certain (as yet unspecified) Russian banks only.
Putin's goals are somewhat the reverse of that. A democratic, prosperous Ukraine is a threat to his legitimacy. So his goals are rational in that sense. His ability to deliver what he wants without significant cost is where, in my analysis, the idiocy lies. Ditto for us in Iraq. There are arguments that we could have done it better, and achieved some better outcomes than we did. Well, maybe. But history has taught me that change through the barrel of a gun, whilst possible, often tends to go a little sideways and gives you unexpected outcomes. The use of force tends to be more successful and predictable when preserving something. Repelling invaders is a different category to invading.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
The flaw in that assessment is that Putin has gone doolally, as evidenced by his crazed national broadcast. When you're dealing with a madman it's really difficult to know what's coming.
I am rather concerned, albeit from my quiet little quarter, that Putin will view the increasing militarisation of Ukrainians by western countries as an escalation tantamount to war. Other countries like Belarus are getting sucked in.
There's a real danger now that this is not going to be contained. We're not far away from WWIII.
I hate to say it, but a speedy Putin victory is probably the safest option. That or the removal of Putin by an instantaneous coup, which would obviously be preferable.
Almost as if multi-ethnic/cultural states can exist without violent repression, or something.